Xref:	news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:5687
From:	Norbert Jay <norbertj AT panix DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: new to djgpp
Date:	Fri, 05 Jul 1996 11:06:40 -0700
Organization:	PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Lines:	28
Message-ID:	<31DD59B0.FA7@panix.com>
References:	<1 DOT 5 DOT 4 DOT 16 DOT 19960703185502 DOT 0a973ee0 AT mailhost DOT cyberhighway DOT net> <4rhaml$odn AT panix2 DOT panix DOT com> <31DCC5EC DOT 5779 AT funcom DOT com>
Reply-To:	norbertj AT panix DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Host:	norbertj.dialup.access.net
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

P=E5l-Kristian Engstad wrote:

> Actually, you are wrong. "C" _is_ very programmer friendly. As I used t=
o
> tell my C students: "C is made by programmers, for programmers."
> One basic fact about programmers is that we hate to write tedious comma=
nds
> over and over again. That is why "C" uses { and } instead of BEGIN and =
END.
> Also, C is extreme in the sense that you can do "almost everything".
> "C" does _no_ range-checking. If you want to reformat the hard disk, yo=
u
> can do so in "C"!
> =

> "C" is certainly not programmer unfriendly. But I might agree in that i=
t
> is not exactly beginner friendly.
> =

Perhaps I was not clear.  It is certainly pleasing to write a tight terse=
 =

routine with no wasted code.  And the language lets one do it.  But the =

bugs it engenders can be frustrating because it requires some knowledge =

beyond the syntax of the language.

- Raw text -